Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Fluffy fractal clouds, not just spheres, can now be modeled fast in Virga 2.0, with settling and scattering tied together.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Virga 2.0 now models fractal aggregate aerosols in both cloud dynamics and opacity, reproducing prior aggregate spectra while adding an analytic explanation for why fluffy clouds can appear transparent.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-04 challenge →

load-bearing objection Virga v2.0 brings fractal aggregates to a widely used cloud code, but the 'self-consistent' dynamics rest on an unvalidated spherical closure; it still deserves refereeing. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2509.06708 v1 pith:ZGDSRODW submitted 2025-09-08 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IM

Fractal Aggregate Aerosols in the Virga Cloud Code I: Model Description and Application to a Benchmark Cloudy Exoplanet

Sarah E. Moran , Matt G. Lodge , Natasha E. Batalha , Kazumasa Ohno , Sanaz Vahidinia , Mark S. Marley , Hannah R. Wakeford , Z\"oe M. Leinhardt This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IM
keywords fractal aggregatescloud modelingexoplanet atmospherestransmission spectroscopymodified mean field theoryfractal dimensionGJ 1214 bVirga
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Most exoplanet cloud models treat aerosols as compact spheres, but Solar system, disk, and Earth studies show that real haze and cloud particles are often fluffy fractal aggregates—clusters of small monomers. This paper extends the open-source Virga cloud model (Version 2.0) so that these aggregates' settling dynamics and optical properties are computed self-consistently: the user picks a fractal dimension and either a fixed monomer size or a fixed monomer number, and Virga returns the aggregate size distribution and the resulting scattering and absorption opacities. The authors show that this fast parametrized approach reproduces the transmission spectra of previous microphysical KCl aggregate cloud models for fractal dimension Df = 2 on a GJ 1214 b-like planet, and that it can explore a wider range of aggregate shapes (Df = 1.2–2.8) than earlier studies. If the approach holds, cloudy exoplanet spectra can be interpreted with physically grounded fluffy particles at retrieval-friendly speeds, changing how muted spectra and scattering slopes are attributed.

Core claim

The central claim is that fractal aggregate clouds can be incorporated into the analytic EddySed/Virga mass-balance framework without abandoning its speed: aggregate fall speeds are computed from the radius of gyration and fractal dimension, and aggregate optics from Modified Mean Field Theory (MMF), benchmarked against discrete dipole approximation (DDA) calculations. Applied to KCl clouds in a GJ 1214 b-like atmosphere, the method reproduces the Df = 2 spectra of a prior microphysical model, including the steep visible scattering slope for small monomers and the muted near- and mid-infrared features. The paper also identifies a structural consequence: because the cloud mass profile in this

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the fractal aggregate parametrization: an aggregate is a cluster of N_mon identical monomers with fractal dimension D_f and radius of gyration R_agg, related by N_mon = k0 (R_agg/r_mon)^Df. Dynamics use R_agg as the characteristic radius in kinetic- and continuum-regime fall-speed formulas, with the aggregate density set by the fractal dimension. The analytic closure of the original model—a power-law relation between fall speed and particle radius (v_fall = w* (r/r_w)^alpha)—is retained, but alpha is computed from spheres and assumed to hold for aggregates. Optics use Modified Mean Field Theory (MMF), implemented via the OpTool package, to compute extinction, scatt

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the analytic spherical relation between the characteristic particle radius r_g and the settling-balance radius r_w continues to hold for aggregates, even though aggregate fall speeds have different, sometimes non-monotonic functional forms; the paper states this assumption explicitly after deriving alpha from spheres.

What would settle it

Run a microphysical cloud model with the same GJ 1214 b conditions and D_f < 2 KCl aggregates, reporting the actual aggregate radii as a function of pressure. If those radii deviate systematically from the r_w-based sizes Virga 2.0 predicts—or if laboratory settling measurements show aggregate fall speeds that violate the assumed power-law closure—the central claim of self-consistent dynamics would be falsified for fluffy particles. A simpler observational check: measure the cloud-top pressure and visible scattering slope at high precision; the model predicts a sharp transparency drop for D_f

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Transmission spectra of cloudy exoplanets can now be generated with fractal aggregate aerosols across a wide parameter space at the speed of the analytic Virga model, not the cost of microphysical simulations.
  • For fractal dimensions at or below about 2.2, fluffy KCl aggregates are predicted to be more transparent at visible wavelengths than spheres, with a sharp drop in mass scattering opacity; this is a testable spectral signature rather than a small correction.
  • The fixed-monomer-number growth option always finds a stable cloud solution, while fixed-monomer-radius runs can fail for very fluffy particles; the paper recommends fixed-N_mon as the safer default.
  • The close reproduction of the Df = 2 KCl reference spectra suggests existing aggregate cloud observations interpreted with microphysical models may be re-interpretable with this faster framework, including a broader family of particle shapes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the assumed r_g–r_w closure fails for very fluffy aggregates, the predicted particle size distributions would shift, but the paper's own analysis shows the optical consequences are muted by the shape-independence of the cloud mass profile; a direct microphysical comparison would settle how much this matters.
  • Because the cloud mass profile is independent of particle shape in this framework, any observed spectral difference between spherical and aggregate clouds in Virga is purely an optical effect; this clean separation could be used to isolate optical morphology constraints from vertical transport constraints.
  • The same machinery should transfer directly to condensates with strong mid-infrared spectral features (e.g., silicates) where aggregate morphology matters more than for featureless KCl; the paper notes this as future work.
  • The more stable behavior of fixed-N_mon suggests a natural bridge to retrievals: treat N_mon as a free parameter alongside D_f, since it controls both settling and monomer-level optics.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper extends the Virga/EddySed cloud modeling framework to fractal aggregate aerosols. It introduces a parameterized treatment of aggregate fall speeds (free-molecular and continuum/slip regimes), imposes a fall-speed floor for very fluffy aggregates, and offers two growth modes (fixed monomer radius or fixed monomer number). Optical properties are computed with Modified Mean Field Theory (MMF) via Optool and benchmarked against DDA (CORAL); the resulting opacity grids are released. The model is applied to GJ 1214 b-like KCl clouds and simulated transmission spectra are compared with earlier microphysical models, particularly Ohno et al. (2020). Section 4.4 presents an analytic scaling argument intended to explain why some fluffy aggregate clouds are optically transparent. The code is released as Virga v2.0 with supporting data on Zenodo.

Significance. The paper fills a practical and timely gap: a fast, open-source, parameterized alternative to microphysical aggregate cloud models, suitable for large parameter-space sweeps and retrievals. The MMF opacity grid, benchmarked against DDA, and the public release of code and opacity data are concrete strengths. The D_f=2 fixed-r_mon spectral comparisons to Ohno et al. (2020) provide a useful consistency check. Section 4.4 is a valuable analytic attempt to explain morphology-dependent cloud transparency. However, the central claim that the model accounts for both dynamical and optical consequences of fractal aggregates 'in a self-consistent way' (Section 5) is not supported as written because the aggregate size distribution is closed using the spherical fall-speed power law. The dynamical part of the contribution therefore needs either a corrected closure or an explicit, tested limitation before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2, Eqs. (16)-(17)] The load-bearing closure for the aggregate size distribution uses spherical dynamics: 'α is determined using spherical particles (using Eq. 16), and we assume the same relationship between r_g and r_w holds for aggregates.' This maps r_w to r_g and then, through the MMF grid, to every opacity and spectrum. For aggregates, however, Eq. (11) gives v_fall,agg proportional to R_agg^{(D_f-2)} in the kinetic regime, so for D_f≤2 there is no unique aggregate radius satisfying v_fall(r_w)=w*; the spherical α does not represent aggregate dynamics. The comparison to Ohno et al. (2020) in Section 4.3 cannot isolate this assumption because the cloud mass profile is shape-independent by construction (Eq. 23) and f_sed is fixed. The Section 5 claim of self-consistent aggregate dynamics is therefore not established. I recommend deriving an aggregate α from the local slope of v_fall vs R_agg, or solving
  2. [Section 4.4, Eq. (24)] The printed scattering formula has a sign/applicability problem. The text states that Eq. (24) is 'applicable to D_f>2', but the denominator (D_f−1)(2−D_f) is negative for D_f>2, making C_sca,agg negative. The subsequent claim that ζ 'drops sharply' for D_f≲2.2 appears to use the D_f<2 branch, where the denominator is positive. As printed, the analytic transparency explanation is therefore not self-consistent. The formula should be corrected (or the reference expression quoted accurately) and the conclusion re-evaluated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figures 3, 7-12] Unit labels in several figure captions and axis labels appear as 'm' where 'μm' is intended (e.g., 'rmon = 0.01 m', 'Mean Aggregate Radius ( m)'). Please fix to avoid confusion.
  2. [Eqs. (14)-(15)] The linear interpolation for k_0 in Eq. (15) is stated to transition smoothly to Eq. (14) at N_mon=100, but at N_mon=99 the two expressions are only approximately equal, not exactly. Please clarify the intended continuity or adjust the interpolation.
  3. [Section 3, Figure 4] The DDA/MMF benchmark is shown for one illustrative grid (D_f=1.8). A supplementary table or figure with quantitative errors across the full D_f and size grid would strengthen the claim that MMF is 'much closer to DDA' across the parameter space.
  4. [Section 4.2] The sentence 'we do not adjust for the atmospheric metallicity in calculating its saturation vapor pressure profile' is important for understanding the mass-profile comparison to Ohno et al.; consider stating this limitation earlier in the case-study setup.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the aggregate model is an openly parametrized implementation, benchmarked against external DDA and microphysical results, and the spherical closure is a stated assumption rather than a disguised input.

full rationale

The central deliverable is a code implementation and a benchmark, not a quantity derived from itself. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then relabeled a prediction; α is taken from the standard spherical EddySed closure and applied to aggregates under an explicit assumption (Section 2: 'Instead α is determined using spherical particles (using Eq. 16), and we assume the same relationship between r_g and r_w holds for aggregates'). This is an unvalidated modeling assumption and a limitation, but not circular: the paper does not present it as a derived result, and the subsequent optical calculations (MMF opacity grid, Section 3) are independent of the closure. The MMF implementation is benchmarked against DDA (Figure 4) using CORAL, and the D_f=2 spectra reproduce the independent microphysical model of Ohno et al. (2020) (Section 4.3). The analytic transparency result (Section 4.4) is derived from published monomer-scattering and fall-speed formulas, not from the simulation outputs. Several cited works share authors (Ohno, Vahidinia, Lodge), but these are peer-reviewed derivations with stated assumptions and an external numerical method (DDA), so they constitute independent support rather than a self-citation chain. The paper itself flags the main limitations (e.g., no microphysics, shape-independent mass profile, multiple/no-solution cases for D_f≤2) in Sections 2, 4.2, and 5. The overstatement of 'self-consistent' in the conclusion is a correctness risk about the validity of the spherical closure for aggregates, not a circularity in the derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model introduces no new physical entities. It relies on a number of user-prescribed parameters (D_f, r_mon or N_mon, f_sed, sigma) and an ad hoc closure connecting aggregate size distributions to the spherical power-law solution.

free parameters (7)
  • fractal dimension D_f = grid: 1.2, 1.6, 2.0, 2.4, 2.8
    Prescribed by user, not derived. Controls both fall speed and optical properties.
  • monomer radius r_mon = 0.01, 0.1, 1 micron
    User-set in fixed-r_mon growth mode; grid covers three values.
  • number of monomers N_mon = 100, 1000, 10000
    User-set in fixed-N_mon growth mode; grid covers three values.
  • sedimentation efficiency f_sed = 0.3
    Set to Morley et al. (2013) recommended value for sub-Neptunes; not fitted but affects cloud mass profile.
  • lognormal width sigma = 2
    Chosen following previous Virga studies; affects size distribution.
  • Knudsen number bifurcation = 10
    Assumed crossover between free molecular and continuum regimes; ad hoc.
  • v_fall floor condition = v_fall(aggregate) >= v_fall(monomer)
    Imposed to prevent unphysically low fall speeds for D_f < 2; not derived from data.
axioms (5)
  • standard math Fractal scaling relation N_mon = k0 (R_agg/r_mon)^D_f
    Defines the aggregate structure; from literature (Sorensen 2011, Vahidinia et al. 2024).
  • domain assumption Monomer mass density equals bulk material density and monomers are spherical and non-porous
    Used in mass conservation and fall speed; stated in Section 2.
  • ad hoc to paper EddySed mass balance Eq. 1 and power-law closure Eq. 16 hold, with alpha from spherical particles also valid for aggregates
    Section 2: 'we assume the same relationship between r_g and r_w holds for aggregates'. This is the load-bearing closure.
  • domain assumption Modified Mean Field Theory with Gaussian cutoff (iqcor=1) approximates aggregate optics
    Section 3; they tested iqcor=3 shows 1-2% differences, so they keep 1. DDA benchmark supports for KCl grid.
  • domain assumption The cloud mass mixing ratio profile is independent of particle shape in EddySed (Eq. 23)
    Derived in Section 4.4; used to explain transparency.

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fractal Aggregate Aerosols in the Virga Cloud Code I: Model Description and Application to a Benchmark Cloudy Exoplanet." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZGDSRODW

@misc{pith2026250906708,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fractal Aggregate Aerosols in the Virga Cloud Code I: Model Description and Application to a Benchmark Cloudy Exoplanet},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZGDSRODW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06708}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We introduce new functionality to treat fractal aggregate aerosol particles within the Virga cloud modeling framework. Previously, the open source cloud modeling code Virga (Batalha et al. 2025), the Python version of EddySed (Ackerman & Marley, 2001), assumed spherical particles to compute particle mass and size distributions throughout the atmosphere. The initial release of Virga also assumed spherical particles to compute Mie scattering properties, which include the single scattering albedo, asymmetry parameter, and optical depth as a function of particle radius and composition. However, extensive evidence from Solar system aerosols, astrophysical disks and dust, and Earth climate studies suggests that non-spherical aggregate particles are common compared to idealized compact spherical particles. Following recent advances in microphysical and opacity modeling, we implement a simple parametrization for dynamical and optical (modified mean field theory) effects of fractal aggregate particles into Virga. We then use this new functionality to perform a case study using basic planetary parameters similar to the well-characterized, aerosol-laden mini-Neptune GJ 1214 b, using KCl clouds made of aggregate particles. We choose KCl to most directly explore comparisons to previous studies. We demonstrate 1) how our method compares to previous fractal aggregate particle treatments and 2) how our new fractal treatment affects theoretical spectra of cloudy atmospheres. Overall, our model is faster and more flexible for a wider range of parameter space than previous studies. We explore the limitations of our modeling set-up and offer guidance for future investigations using our framework.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.06708 by Hannah R. Wakeford, Kazumasa Ohno, Mark S. Marley, Matt G. Lodge, Natasha E. Batalha, Sanaz Vahidinia, Sarah E. Moran, Z\"oe M. Leinhardt.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The variety of different radii definitions that are used in this paper for spherical and non-spherical shapes. To illustrate the definitions, in the example above all three shapes above have identical mass, but the characteristic radius rc (used for calculating the optical properties and the fall velocity) is different for each shape. The characteristic radius rc for a sphere is r. The characteristic radiu… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Schematic of aggregate particle options as implemented into Virga. (a) Spheres grow in radius as larger particles are needed to balance higher convective velocities in Eq. 1. (b) If the user prescribes a fixed monomer radius rmon: as particles grow, only the number of monomers increases. However, to allow smaller particle solutions in lighter convective velocity situations, very small particles are treated… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Fall speeds, vfall, of compact spheres with radius r compared to aggregate particles (in terms of their equivalent compact mass radius ragg,m) of varying fractal numbers (Df) at single layer (pressure of 0.1 bar) of an example model atmosphere. At the radius where the fall speed is equal to the convective velocity (wconvect; dashed grey line), a particle of that radius would be stable in that atmospheric l… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of Qscat shown for a fractal dimen￾sion Df = 1.8 over a grid of particle sizes using different optics tools, i.e., modified mean field theory (MMF) via Optool (Dominik et al. 2021); the discrete dipole approx￾imation (DDA) via CORAL (Lodge et al. 2024a), as well as Mie theory from both. At a fraction of the computational cost, MMF theory is much closer to the “reality” of DDA compared to Mie the… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The extinction opacity of aggregate particles of KCl as a function of wavelength for different monomer sizes rmon with an aggregate radius of Ragg = 10 µm, computed by MMF theory with Optool. The dotted grey line shows extinction for a spherical particle with a radius of 10 µm. From left to right, we show fractal dimensions Df of 1.2, 2.0, and 2.8. Our middle panel with Df = 2 reproduces [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: Our GJ 1214 b-like model atmosphere pressure-temperature profile (solid, lavender) computed with PICASO for a 100× solar metallicity composition and the condensation curve of KCl (dashed, maroon) computed with Virga. Center: The eddy diffusion coefficient, Kzz, evolution of our model atmosphere with pressure, following Charnay et al. (2015a). Right: the mean mass mixing ratio (MMR) of condensed KCl p… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top: mean particle size (in terms of equivalent mass compact spheres, ragg,m) for fixed monomer sizes of rmon = 0.01, 0.1, and 1 µm as a function of pressure for our model GJ 1214 b atmosphere. Bottom: the same as top, but for fixed Nmon = 100, 1,000, and 10,000 monomers. The thin dash-dot red lines in both rows denotes the Df = 2.0 compression radius taken from Equation 18 of Ohno et al. (2020), beyond wh… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Top: volume filling factor for fixed monomer sizes of rmon = 0.01, 0.1, and 1 µm as a function of pressure for our model GJ 1214 b atmosphere. Bottom: the same as top, but for fixed Nmon = 100, 1,000, and 10,000 monomers. As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Top: the number of particles as a function of pressure for fixed monomer sizes of rmon = 0.01, 0.1, and 1 µm for our model GJ 1214 b-like atmosphere. Bottom: the same as top, but for fixed Nmon = 100, 1,000, and 10,000 monomers. The marker sizes are scaled by the equivalent mass compact radius, ragg,m. As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Top: the cloud top pressure (i.e., where τ = 1) for fixed monomer sizes of rmon = 0.01, 0.1, and 1 µm as a function of pressure for our model GJ 1214 b-like atmosphere. Bottom: the same as top, but for fixed Nmon = 100, 1,000, and 10,000 monomers. fixed Nmon behaves more stably compared to the fixed rmon versions, which is demonstrated here. Finally, our [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Top, center, bottom: Simulated transmission spectra for aggregate KCl clouds in a 100× solar metallicity atmosphere on a GJ 1214 b-like planet using fixed rmon = 0.01, 0.1, and 1 µm sized monomers, respectively, for fractal dimensions of Df = 1.2, 1.6, 2.0, 2.4, and 2.8 along with spherical cloud particles. The change in opacity at visible-NIR wavelengths is highly dependent on the size of monomer. For KC… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Top, center, bottom: Simulated transmission spectra for aggregate KCl clouds in a 100× solar metallicity atmosphere on a GJ 1214 b-like planet using fixed Nmon = 100, 1,000, and 10,000 monomers, respectively, for fractal dimensions of Df = 1.2, 1.6, 2.0, 2.4, and 2.8 along with spherical cloud particles. Changing the number of monomers in this formulation hardly changes the spectra. For KCl clouds, lacier… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Ultraviolet Radiation Effects on the Optical Properties of Water-Dominated Exoplanet Hazes

    astro-ph.EP 2026-06 conditional novelty 7.0

    UV irradiation makes water-dominated exoplanet haze analogs more absorbing from 0.5-8 μm, producing a detectable difference in the 2.6 μm N-H feature in modeled transmission spectra for GJ 1214b.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

109 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    S., & Marley, M

    Ackerman, A. S., & Marley, M. S. 2001, ApJ, 556, 872, doi: 10.1086/321540

    doi:10.1086/321540 2001

  2. [2]

    H., & Buseck, P

    Adachi, K., Chung, S. H., & Buseck, P. R. 2010, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 115

    2010

  3. [3]

    Adams, D., Gao, P., de Pater, I., & Morley, C. V. 2019, ApJ, 874, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab074c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab074c 2019

  4. [4]

    B., Mansfield, M., et al

    Ahrer, E.-M., Stevenson, K. B., Mansfield, M., et al. 2023, Nature, 614, 653, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05590-4

    doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05590-4 2023

  5. [5]

    N., Meadows, V

    Arney, G. N., Meadows, V. S., Domagal-Goldman, S. D., et al. 2017, ApJ, 836, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/49 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astrop...

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/49 2017

  6. [6]

    M., & Mukherjee, S

    Batalha, N., Rooney, C. M., & Mukherjee, S. 2020, Virga: Initial Release, v0.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3759888

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.3759888 2020

  7. [7]

    2025, natashabatalha/virga: v2.0.0, v2.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17065733

    Batalha, N., Rooney, C., Mukherjee, S., et al. 2025, natashabatalha/virga: v2.0.0, v2.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17065733

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.17065733 2025

  8. [8]

    E., Marley, M

    Batalha, N. E., Marley, M. S., Lewis, N. K., & Fortney, J. J. 2019, ApJ, 878, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b51

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b51 2019

  9. [9]

    E., Rooney, C

    Batalha, N. E., Rooney, C. M., Visscher, C., et al. 2025, Condensation Clouds in Substellar Atmospheres with Virga. https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.15102

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    L., Miller-Ricci Kempton, E., & Homeier, D

    Bean, J. L., Miller-Ricci Kempton, E., & Homeier, D. 2010, Nature, 468, 669, doi: 10.1038/nature09596

    doi:10.1038/nature09596 2010

  11. [11]

    V., & Percival, I

    Berry, M. V., & Percival, I. C. 1986, Optica Acta, 33, 577, doi: 10.1080/713821987

    work page doi:10.1080/713821987 1986

  12. [12]

    A., Lewis, N

    Boehm, V. A., Lewis, N. K., Fairman, C. E., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad8dde

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad8dde 2025

  13. [13]

    F., & Huffman, D

    Bohren, C. F., & Huffman, D. R. 1983, Absorption and scattering of light by small particles

    1983

  14. [14]

    Brande, J., Crossfield, I. J. M., Kreidberg, L., et al. 2024, ApJL, 961, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1b5c

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad1b5c 2024

  15. [15]

    1993, Planet

    Cabane, M., Rannou, P., Chassefiere, E., & Israel, G. 1993, Planet. Space Sci., 41, 257, doi: 10.1016/0032-0633(93)90021-S

    work page doi:10.1016/0032-0633(93)90021-s 1993

  16. [16]

    2015a, ApJ, 813, 15, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/1/15

    Charnay, B., Meadows, V., & Leconte, J. 2015a, ApJ, 813, 15, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/1/15

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/813/1/15

  17. [17]

    2015b, ApJL, 813, L1, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/813/1/L1

    Arney, G. 2015b, ApJL, 813, L1, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/813/1/L1

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/813/1/l1 2041

  18. [18]

    2023, Icarus, 404, 115667, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2023.115667

    Chavez, E., de Pater, I., Redwing, E., et al. 2023, Icarus, 404, 115667, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2023.115667

    arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    2019, Icarus, 330, 16, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2019.04.004

    Chen-Chen, H., P´ erez-Hoyos, S., & S´ anchez-Lavega, A. 2019, Icarus, 330, 16, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2019.04.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2019.04.004 2019

  20. [20]

    A., Mayne, N

    Christie, D. A., Mayne, N. J., Gillard, R. M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 1407, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2763

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2763 2022

  21. [21]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 512, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02488-9

    Coulombe, L.-P., Radica, M., Benneke, B., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 512, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02488-9

    doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02488-9 2025

  22. [22]

    C., Roellig, T

    Cushing, M. C., Roellig, T. L., Marley, M. S., et al. 2006, ApJ, 648, 614, doi: 10.1086/505637 D´ esert, J.-M., Bean, J., Miller-Ricci Kempton, E., et al. 2011, ApJL, 731, L40, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/731/2/L40

    doi:10.1086/505637 2006

  23. [23]

    2021, OpTool: Command-line driven tool for creating complex dust opacities, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2104.010

    Dominik, C., Min, M., & Tazaki, R. 2021, OpTool: Command-line driven tool for creating complex dust opacities, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2104.010. http://ascl.net/2104.010

    2021

  24. [24]

    T., & Flatau, P

    Draine, B. T., & Flatau, P. J. 1994, Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 11, 1491

    1994

  25. [25]

    2024, Nature, 625, 51, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06849-0

    Dyrek, A., Min, M., Decin, L., et al. 2024, Nature, 625, 51, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06849-0

    doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06849-0 2024

  26. [26]

    2018, ApJ, 863, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad461

    Gao, P., & Benneke, B. 2018, ApJ, 863, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad461

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad461 2018

  27. [27]

    S., & Ackerman, A

    Gao, P., Marley, M. S., & Ackerman, A. S. 2018, ApJ, 855, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab0a1

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab0a1 2018

  28. [28]

    R., Moran, S

    Gao, P., Wakeford, H. R., Moran, S. E., & Parmentier, V. 2021, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 126, e06655, doi: 10.1029/2020JE006655

    doi:10.1029/2020je006655 2021

  29. [29]

    P., Lee, E

    Gao, P., Thorngren, D. P., Lee, E. K. H., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 951, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1114-3

    doi:10.1038/s41550-020-1114-3 2020

  30. [30]

    Gao, P., Piette, A. A. A., Steinrueck, M. E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd16f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd16f 2023

  31. [31]

    K., Wakeford, H

    Grant, D., Lewis, N. K., Wakeford, H. R., et al. 2023, ApJL, 956, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acfc3b10.3847/2041-8213/acfdab

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acfc3b10.3847/2041-8213/acfdab 2023

  32. [32]

    2010, A&A, 520, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913396

    Guillot, T. 2010, A&A, 520, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913396

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913396 2010

  33. [33]

    D., Johnson, A

    Hamill, C. D., Johnson, A. V., & Gao, P. 2024, PSJ, 5, 186, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad6569 F ast Fluffy Fractals forVirga23

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ad6569 2024

  34. [34]

    Hansen, J. E. 1971, Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 28, 1400 , doi: 10.1175/1520-0469(1971)028⟨1400:MSOPLI⟩2.0.CO;2

    doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1971)028 1971

  35. [35]

    E., & Travis, L

    Hansen, J. E., & Travis, L. D. 1974, SSRv, 16, 527, doi: 10.1007/BF00168069

    doi:10.1007/bf00168069 1974

  36. [36]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  37. [37]

    M., Lewis, N

    He, C., H¨ orst, S. M., Lewis, N. K., et al. 2018, ApJL, 856, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aab42b

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aab42b 2018

  38. [38]

    E., et al

    He, C., Radke, M., Moran, S. E., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 182, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02140-4

    doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02140-4 2024

  39. [39]

    2019, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 47, 583, doi: 10.1146/annurev-earth-053018-060401

    Helling, C. 2019, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 47, 583, doi: 10.1146/annurev-earth-053018-060401

    doi:10.1146/annurev-earth-053018-060401 2019

  40. [40]

    W., & Min, M

    Huang, H., Ormel, C. W., & Min, M. 2024, A&A, 691, A291, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451112

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451112 2024

  41. [41]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  42. [42]

    2018, ApJ, 853, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa0c5

    Kawashima, Y., & Ikoma, M. 2018, ApJ, 853, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa0c5

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa0c5 2018

  43. [43]

    Kempton, E. M. R., Zhang, M., Bean, J. L., et al. 2023, Nature, 620, 67, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06159-5

    doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06159-5 2023

  44. [44]

    N., Sagan, C., Arakawa, E

    Khare, B. N., Sagan, C., Arakawa, E. T., et al. 1984, Icarus, 60, 127, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(84)90142-8

    doi:10.1016/0019-1035(84)90142-8 1984

  45. [45]

    A., et al

    Kiefer, S., Samra, D., Lewis, D. A., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A244, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450526

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450526 2024

  46. [46]

    2006, A&A, 449, 1243, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041783

    Kimura, H., Kolokolova, L., & Mann, I. 2006, A&A, 449, 1243, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041783

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20041783 2006

  47. [47]

    2016, ApJ, 817, 32, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/1/32

    Kopparla, P., Natraj, V., Zhang, X., et al. 2016, ApJ, 817, 32, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/1/32

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/817/1/32 2016

  48. [48]

    L., D´ esert, J.-M., et al

    Kreidberg, L., Bean, J. L., D´ esert, J.-M., et al. 2014, Nature, 505, 69, doi: 10.1038/nature12888

    doi:10.1038/nature12888 2014

  49. [49]

    E., Garc ´ ıa Mu˜ noz, A., & Showman, A

    Lavvas, P., Koskinen, T., Steinrueck, M. E., Garc ´ ıa Mu˜ noz, A., & Showman, A. P. 2019, ApJ, 878, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab204e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab204e 2019

  50. [50]

    F., et al

    Lavvas, P., Lellouch, E., Strobel, D. F., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 289, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-01270-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-020-01270-3 2021

  51. [51]

    Lee, E. K. H., & Ohno, K. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.12928, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.12928

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.12928 2025

  52. [52]

    K., Burningham, B., Saumon, D., et al

    Leggett, S. K., Burningham, B., Saumon, D., et al. 2010, ApJ, 710, 1627, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/1627

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/710/2/1627 2010

  53. [53]

    Lodders, K., Palme, H., & Gail, H. P. 2009, Landolt Bornstein, 4B, 712, doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-88055-4 34

    doi:10.1007/978-3-540-88055-4 2009

  54. [54]

    E., & Batalha, N

    Lodge, M., Moran, S. E., & Batalha, N. 2025, ”Mie” Coefficients for Fractal Aggregates for the Virga Exoplanet Cloud Model (Virga V2), Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.16581692

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.16581692 2025

  55. [55]

    G., Wakeford, H

    Lodge, M. G., Wakeford, H. R., & Leinhardt, Z. M. 2024a, MNRAS, 527, 11113, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3743 —. 2024b, MNRAS, 535, 1964, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2451

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3743 1964

  56. [56]

    2021, Correlated k coefficients for H2-He atmospheres; 196 spectral windows and 1460 pressure-temperature points, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7542068

    Lupu, R., Freedman, R., Gharib-Nezhad, E., Visscher, C., & Molliere, P. 2021, Correlated k coefficients for H2-He atmospheres; 196 spectral windows and 1460 pressure-temperature points, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7542068

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.7542068 2021

  57. [57]

    J., & Batalha, N

    MacDonald, R. J., & Batalha, N. E. 2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 54, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/acc46a

    doi:10.3847/2515-5172/acc46a 2023

  58. [58]

    J., & Madhusudhan, N

    MacDonald, R. J., & Madhusudhan, N. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 1979, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx804

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx804 2017

  59. [59]

    2025, AJ, 169, 221, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adb7e8

    Malsky, I., Rauscher, E., Stevenson, K., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 221, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adb7e8

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/adb7e8 2025

  60. [60]

    V., Robinson, T

    Mang, J., Morley, C. V., Robinson, T. D., & Gao, P. 2024, ApJ, 974, 190, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6c4c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6c4c 2024

  61. [61]

    S., Ackerman, A

    Marley, M. S., Ackerman, A. S., Cuzzi, J. N., & Kitzmann, D. 2013, in Comparative Climatology of Terrestrial Planets, ed. S. J. Mackwell, A. A. Simon-Miller, J. W. Harder, & M. A. Bullock, 367–392, doi: 10.2458/azu uapress 9780816530595-ch015

    doi:10.2458/azu 2013

  62. [62]

    S., & Robinson, T

    Marley, M. S., & Robinson, T. D. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 279, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122522

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122522 2015

  63. [63]

    E., Biller, B

    Miles, B. E., Biller, B. A., Patapis, P., et al. 2023, ApJL, 946, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb04a Miller-Ricci Kempton, E., Zahnle, K., & Fortney, J. J. 2012, ApJ, 745, 3, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/1/3

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acb04a 2023

  64. [64]

    2015, in European Physical Journal Web of

    Min, M. 2015, in European Physical Journal Web of

    2015

  65. [65]

    102, European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, 00005, doi: 10.1051/epjconf/201510200005

    Conferences, Vol. 102, European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, 00005, doi: 10.1051/epjconf/201510200005

    arXiv

  66. [66]

    Waters, L. B. F. M. 2006, A&A, 445, 1005, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053212

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053212 2006

  67. [67]

    Wakeford, H. R. 2018, AJ, 156, 252, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aae83a

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aae83a 2018

  68. [68]

    F., et al

    Morel, K., Coulombe, L.-P., Rowe, J. F., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 277, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adc43f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/adc43f 2025

  69. [69]

    V., Fortney, J

    Morley, C. V., Fortney, J. J., Kempton, E. M. R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 775, 33, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/1/33

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/775/1/33 2013

  70. [70]

    V., Fortney, J

    Morley, C. V., Fortney, J. J., Marley, M. S., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, 172, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/172 —. 2015, ApJ, 815, 110, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/815/2/110

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/756/2/172 2012

  71. [71]

    E., Fortney, J

    Mukherjee, S., Batalha, N. E., Fortney, J. J., & Marley, M. S. 2023, ApJ, 942, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9f48

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9f48 2023

  72. [72]

    K., & MacDonald, R

    Mullens, E., Lewis, N. K., & MacDonald, R. J. 2024, ApJ, 977, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8575

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8575 2024

  73. [73]

    2024, The Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 5875, doi: 10.21105/joss.05875 24Moran and Lodge et al

    Nasedkin, E., Molli` ere, P., & Blain, D. 2024, The Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 5875, doi: 10.21105/joss.05875 24Moran and Lodge et al

    doi:10.21105/joss.05875 2024

  74. [74]

    2024, ApJ, 977, 188, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8e67

    Ohno, K. 2024, ApJ, 977, 188, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8e67

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8e67 2024

  75. [75]

    2020, ApJL, 895, L47, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab93d7

    Ohno, K., & Kawashima, Y. 2020, ApJL, 895, L47, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab93d7

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab93d7 2020

  76. [76]

    2017, ApJ, 835, 261, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/261

    Ohno, K., & Okuzumi, S. 2017, ApJ, 835, 261, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/261

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/261 2017

  77. [77]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 859, 34

    Ohno, K., & Okuzumi, S. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 859, 34

    2018

  78. [78]

    2020, ApJ, 891, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab44bd

    Ohno, K., Okuzumi, S., & Tazaki, R. 2020, ApJ, 891, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab44bd

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab44bd 2020

  79. [79]

    Ohno, K., & Tanaka, Y. A. 2021, ApJ, 920, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1516

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1516 2021

  80. [80]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 912, 37

    Ohno, K., Zhang, X., Tazaki, R., & Okuzumi, S. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 912, 37

    2021

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 4, 2026.